Caristo Construction Corp. v. Rubin
In the Matter of Caristo Construction Corp. v. Max. J. Rubin, as President of the Board of Education of the City of New York, (Public School 154.) In the Matter of Caristo Construction Corp. v. Max J. Rubin, as President of the Board of Education of the City of New York, (Public School 309.) In the Matter of Mars Associates, Inc. v. Max J. Rubin, Constituting the Board of Education of the City of New York
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Chief Judge Desmond.
While we have doubt as to the board’s power permanently to disqualify appellants from bidding on Board of Education specifications and/or contracts, we do not construe the resolution in question as a permanent disqualification, and the Corporation Counsel indicated on the argument that it was not so intended.
Appellants are free at any time to renew their applications for prequalification based upon their past experience and performance with the Board of Education, and such other factors as may be appropriate.
The orders should be affirmed, without costs.
Dissent
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Van Voorhis, J. (dissenting).
The determination permanently disqualifying petitioners from bidding on Board of Education contracts was, in my vieAV, arbitrary and capricious for reasons stated at Special Term, and beyond the poAvers of the board. By affirming, the majority of the court is holding, in effect, that petitioners may be disqualified indefinitely but not *542 permanently. That seems to me to be a distinction without a material difference. Defective work in connection with school buildings has not been laid at their doors. They have performed hundreds of millions of dollars of construction work for the Board of Education over a period of many years without fault being found respecting materials, workmanship or prices. The Board of Education even let contracts to at least one of the petitioners after the occurrence of the incident now being held to disqualify them from bidding. Neither their competence as builders nor their financial responsibility is criticized. The bids interposed on the job in question were the lowest submitted by any competitive bidder. The circumstance that they resolved the conflict resulting from tie bids in the manner in which they did, which may have been illegal, has no relation to preventing them from hereafter bidding on other jobs, which can only result in lessening the competition and increasing the costs of school construction. The orders of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the orders of Special Term reinstated.
Judges Dye, Fuld, Froessel, Burke and Foster concur with Chief Judge Desmond ; Judge Van Voorhis dissents in a separate opinion.
In each case: Order affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.